So I made this effect where the spectator selects a blind card from a deck, then selects a card from an invisible deck and the 2 cards match and the response to it was very strong. What I noticed however that my full deck equivoc wasn't very fluent and also had to much verbal repetition.I used the version of Joshua Quinn from Paralies, but because I had to translate it to Dutch I noticed not everything was usable.

So my question, is there any other good material for full deck equivocation? I heard 'The Berglass Effect' had something but as it's sold out or on e-bay for 1 trillion euro's, I need to look somewhere else.I don't just need methods, any indepth explanation are welcome as well.

A female and male are seated, the female is asked not to say anything out loud (AT ALL) she is asked to imagine two piles of cards, a red pile and black pile then imagine picking a pile up. (she never gestures, moves or says anything).

She is then asked to imagine picking up the clubs, hearts, spades or diamonds (again she never moves, gestures or says anything).

She can have pictures or numbers. (pictures being jack, queen or king numbers being ace through to ten) (again never gestures, blah blah)

She is then told to imagine sending that card to the male.

He is given a deck of cards, (after they are seen to be regular) and is asked to deal them face down until he is gets a strong urge to stop.

He does and stops wherever he likes. The performer NEVER touches the card he has stopped on.

he asks the lady what card she built in her mind (say she says the jack of hearts) he turns over the card he stopped on and its the jack of hearts!!!!

She never writes the card down, she never touches the cards, she doesnt ever say anything until the participant has hold of one card. None of them have ever met before and best of all its 100000000% guaranteed to work every time.

Kenton Knepper has something called "Truly invisible" in "Wonder words 2" (I believe) and Derren Brown released an effect called "invisible deal" in the "Devils picture book".

i've read about derren brown's 'invisible deal' and someone performed it for me. I found it fantastic but after the explanation i couldn't see how it would work 100% of the time (still can't)

On wizard product review they referred to MULTIPLICITY from Max Maven. Do you (or anyone else) know this product? It does talk about equivoc and multiple outs but I wonder if it brings real new stuff or not..

Last edited by Phrenic on Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

i've read about derren brown's 'invisible deal' and someone performed it for me. I found it fantastic but after the explanation i couldn't see how it would work 100% of the time (still can't)

On wizard product review they revered to MULTIPLICITY from Max Maven. Do you (or anyone else) know this product? It does talk about equivoc and multiple outs but I wonder if it brings real new stuff or not..

Not 100%.... really don't know what you mean with that? You mean it's a bad presented product or that it doesn't bring anyting new?

I tried full deck equivoque a few times on friends now (which can give me feedback afterwards) and said I should distance the choice from my patter. My patter was: "O.K. we're going to talk cards out, red or black, which do you choose?" (i gave more patter but this was the part that 'mattered')And although my friends knew what to do they had a great urge to ask "what do you mean 'out'? You mean out of the equation or out of the deck for usage?"

Not 100%.... really don't know what you mean with that? You mean it's a bad presented product or that it doesn't bring anyting new?

I tried full deck equivoque a few times on friends now (which can give me feedback afterwards) and said I should distance the choice from my patter. My patter was: "O.K. we're going to talk cards out, red or black, which do you choose?" (i gave more patter but this was the part that 'mattered')And although my friends knew what to do they had a great urge to ask "what do you mean 'out'? You mean out of the equation or out of the deck for usage?"

Ah, yes, now i understand. Yeah, i figured that, although it is an amazing tool to play with. I'm thinking of combining it with multiple outs, would make it a nice part of a routine and gives me the option of practise.

btw, I reversed my effect, to try it out. It's similar to Peter Turner's effect with the female selecting from an invisible deck and the guy afterwards selecting a card from a real deck.I really enjoyed building up after the real card was selected.

Are there any ways we can tempt you more? I'd love to see the effect and also it's always nice to see similar effects with different presentation, so i'm pro towards the video

At the moment i'm working with the invisible deal with equivoc. It seems more fair to people if they really think I don't know which pile is which.. ciombined with an invisible deck if i mess it up... really nice effect

I remember Paul Gertner doing a "fire" patter for what you are looking for in his lecture which I believe is done by Larry Becker. David Regal in Approaching Magic has an excellent routine that involves the fire in a building routine called Hotel 52. Also in Art of Astonishment books there is one where you are writing the spectators choices out on a pad. For me that is the easiest to remember since I am taking notes.

If you ever get to Chicago and buy Eugene burger lunch... This guy is a ninja at forcing one card using equivoke. Also check out Joshua Quinn's work, he's a good friend and a killer mental sleight master.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum